In 2008, Whirlpool facilities were closed and the current bargaining agreement (CBA) expired. Each CBA included a supplemental insurance agreement setting forth the general agreed health benefits for active members and for retirees represented by the union). As of January 1, 2009, Whirlpool (the parent of Maytag) proposed changing the retiree medical benefits schedule and sought a judgment that they had such right. Recognizing that ERISA does not mandate that employee welfare plans provide vested benefits, the Court ruled that the employer had the right unilaterally to modify or terminate the benefits at any time. In reviewing both the CBA and the summary plan description (SPD), the Court found no ambiguity that would result in any extrinsic evidence being admissible to show that benefits were vested. Indeed the SPD, in which the union participated in drafting, stated as follows:

“The benefits described in this booklet are not vested benefits, and Maytag reserves the right to modify, suspend or terminate the plan or any component or successor plan, in whole or in part, at any time and, for any reason…”

This is obviously an issue that may come up more and more often in light of the changing health care universe. Maytag Corporation, a subsidiary of Whirlpool Corporation, vs. International Union, et al. (8th Cir. 2012).